Stephen Farry: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Following on from the two previous speakers, I can offer only 30 years of continuous service in elected office. [Interruption.] I am on a slippery slope.
I may be the only person in this debate who was actually present in the room when the Good Friday agreement was concluded, so perhaps I can give some of the inside track on what happened. I suppose the most relevant thing to say is that we have named this agreement the Good Friday agreement. Officially, it is the Belfast agreement, but around the world it is known as the Good Friday agreement. That largely came about by accident, because the deadline was set for 5 o’clock on the previous day—the Thursday. Members know what we are like with deadlines in Northern Ireland, but if everything had gone to time, this would have been called the Holy Thursday or the Maundy Thursday agreement, which perhaps does not have quite the same ring to it. Given some of the narrative we have had over the past 25 years, I am not quite sure whether the Julius Iscariot moment would have added to the notions of betrayal we have had from some limited quarters in those 25 years.
What happened was that the officials essentially stopped the clock for 24 hours and pretended everything was going to plan. With true civil service efficiency, however, the catering contract was only booked until 5 o’clock on the Thursday, so the delegates were deprived of food and water for the final 24 hours, although I believe some people did sneak out. At that time we were just starting to benefit from the introduction of 24 hour supermarkets in Northern Ireland, and some people did smuggle in supplies at 4 o’clock in the morning. That was the final drive towards getting this over the line, but of course, as has been alluded to, there are many other people who did the hard graft in getting us to that point. I thank the Secretary of State for commenting on my party’s role, in particular that of Lord Allardyce, our leader then.
Mention has rightly been made of those from the various Governments, but I will single out one person who made an enormous personal sacrifice in that week: the then Irish Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. It is not widely known that his mother died at the start of that week, but he stuck with the negotiations, given their importance, and only briefly went back down to Dublin for her funeral before returning to ensure that the talks got over the line.
I will try to be measured in my comments as today is not an occasion to get into some of the deep political discussions we are currently having, although I will allude to them, I hope in a calm way. It is important to acknowledge our successes. The agreement was essentially about the three-stranded process—the internal governance of Northern Ireland and the north-south and east-west aspects—alongside the principle of consent, which is crucial for the constitutional issue, equality and human rights, and reform of policing and criminal justice. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, some people had to accept some difficult things, while others, I say with respect, decided to take a different view around issues such as the early release of prisoners.
The agreement is now the de facto constitution of Northern Ireland. When Northern Ireland was founded in 1921 there was a certain degree of controversy, and there were difficult periods during most of the existence of the previous Stormont Parliament. There was lack of equality in Northern Ireland; equally, Northern Ireland was not recognised by large sections of the nationalist community. The trade-off was, for the first time, in  effect, that the nationalist section of the community accepted the legitimacy of Northern Ireland, alongside the Irish Government removing articles 2 and 3 of their constitution, in return for power sharing and equality. There was recognition of the principle of consent that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK until and unless the majority decide otherwise. That is in essence the Good Friday agreement.
Considerable progress has been made over the past 25 years. We have a much more peaceful society now, but it is important that we recognise that that is now qualified because of the threat from both dissident republicans and loyalist paramilitaries. There is also continued paramilitary organised crime activity and control of communities. We are also a much more prosperous society than in the 1990s and earlier. If anyone who visited Northern Ireland in the ’70s and ’80s were to return now, they would be struck by the huge transformation, but that must also be qualified: while many have had new, life-changing opportunities, large sections of the population have still been left behind, with a lack of opportunity to transform their lives, and we must be seized of that.
We have also seen huge diversity in two key respects. First, a lot of people have come to Northern Ireland from other parts of the world. They have made it their home and been made very welcome. Secondly, there has been a change in conceptions of identity—a number of speakers have alluded to that—and how people see themselves. People have moved away from traditional notions of identity, in particular the two communities model. That has been seen through the growth of my party, but there are many other factors as well. It is particularly notable among young people.
There is unfinished business around victims and legacy— I will not dwell on that point today; we will debate it in due course in this Chamber—and on what needs to be done to address the Bill of Rights aspect of the agreement. We have seen large steps forward on reconciliation and moves towards a shared and integrated society, but we are not there entirely just yet. We still have large patterns of segregation in our society. Our children are still largely educated separately and too many people live in what are deemed to be single-identity areas. We have seen some progress on integrated schools and mixed housing in recent years, but there is a lot more to do. And of course, we have the current political instability, with the absence of the institutions. It is worth noting that over the past 25 years the institutions have been operational for only 60% of the time. They have been down for 40% of that time, which is not really tenable in what we would like to see as a functioning, stable democracy.
I will not dwell too much on Brexit, but it is relevant to the debate. I often say that Northern Ireland can only really work through sharing and interdependence. For that, we have needed open free borders to balance north-south and east-west flows, alongside internal power sharing. Brexit poses a challenge in that regard. There is no perfect solution to mitigating its impact, but I believe that the original protocol provided a soft landing for us. I welcome the Windsor framework in providing an even softer landing for Northern Ireland from those particular challenges. There are still no guarantees that it will work for Northern Ireland. We have to keep ploughing on and address ongoing issues as they come along, but I believe we are now in a much better place.
We need to be very conscious of the impact of what the Government may do in due course on the European convention on human rights. Even if they remain a party to the Council of Europe in that respect, if barriers are put up to people accessing their rights under the convention, that will run contrary to the agreement itself. It is worth stressing that human rights have been crucial to the reform of policing and criminal justice.
Sadly, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement we do not have functioning institutions. My party has consistently called for reform. When I say consistently, I am going right back to 1998. We strongly supported the Good Friday agreement as a new start for Northern Ireland, but even at the time we were conscious of the, shall we say, rather rigorous form of power sharing—or consociationism, to give it its formal academic term—and the system of designations, whereby people had to sign in as either a Unionist or nationalist, or by default become “another”. My identity, according to the agreement, is “another”, rather than any positive affirmation.
The agreement does allow for reform. It can and should evolve to take account of changed circumstances. Reform can take place in any context, but it is particularly vital now, with the institutions down. It remains to be seen if and when they will be restored over the coming weeks or months, or ever, depending on how we analyse the current situation. Some people will make the case that reform cannot take place in the absence of stable functioning institutions. I would say that, instead, we perhaps need to have reform first in order to get stable functioning political institutions. We can return to that tension on another occasion. In a similar way, people talk about the need to take forward reform by consensus, but if we are talking about trying to challenge the current vetoes that certain parties have and we give them a veto over the process of removing their vetoes, how likely are they to give up those vetoes? There has to be a role for the two Governments to try to drive that process forward.
There are three areas of reform that I wish to highlight. The first is on the system of designations. We need to move away from that towards a system of weighted majority on key decision making that still provides cross-community protection, but without locking ourselves into the rigorous notion of identity, which sometimes can become a bit of a straitjacket. We should move towards some form of voluntary coalition, or a coalition of the willing, where parties move in and out of government. Again, putting in place a threshold of support to ensure that any Government are cross-community in their nature would be more in keeping with how coalition Governments are formed in other places around the world. Before we even get to that type of governance, in the event of a blockage on the current restoration of the Executive, a much more limited reform could be put in place if a party decides not to take up the place of either First Minister or Deputy First Minister, to let the next party—at present my own party, but that is not the motivation—take office and see if they can establish a Government of sorts. Northern Ireland badly needs its Government restored.
Finally, I want to talk about a quarter of a century of prosperity. People have rightly said that the past 25 years have been about the consolidation of peace. We have made huge strides in that regard, but Northern Ireland is still not living up to its potential in respect of  prosperity. We first need to ensure that we have political stability. We must also make sure that we invest in the various drivers of the economy and in particular skills. We have the potential, under the Windsor framework, to become a focal point of inward investment, given our advantages of dual market access. We need to make sure that that becomes a reality. I do not envy the Secretary of State’s job in that regard. A budget has to be struck for Northern Ireland in the very near future to give certainty to Government Departments. But at present, we are talking about a burning platform, and a cycle of cuts. If that is not arrested, we will look towards decline.
In that context, my party is keen to have a conversation with the Government about some form of public service transformation fund or prosperity fund for Northern Ireland, to try to break this vicious cycle. There has been a history of generous packages from the UK Government that have not been, shall we say, fully taken advantage of or have been squandered in different ways. We must learn why that has happened. We must recognise that any generosity from the Treasury to give Northern Ireland the chance to build on the past 25 years will need to come with quite strict conditions.
At present, I do not see any way forward to break through that cycle, to do proper investment, to save and transform public services, to invest in skills and to take advantage of opportunities, unless we have that particular helping hand. I appreciate that that is difficult, particularly in the current public expenditure climate, but I encourage the Government to give that serious consideration. That is difficult if there is no clear indication among the parties that they are on the brink of restoring the Assembly, but as and when that move begins, I hope that the Government will be a willing partner. The ball should be in the court of the parties to come up with a coherent plan. I am up for that challenge, along with my colleagues.